« PreviousContinue »
illustrated the specimens appear to resemble the subspecies sene aJ...
Iot 19533. See also Sudan below. Theiler states (correspondence)
and Gold Coast are probably repetitions from Neumann_.7
CENTRAL AFRICA: CAMEKOONS (Neumann 1932A. Zumpt 1943A.
EAST AFRICA: SUDAN [ The synonylmus R. shi 1e i from "Soudan"
ETHIOPIA (As R. sixmis, R. hil erti, and R. erlan eri: Neumann
ITALIAN SOMALILAND (Paoli 1916. Franchini 1926,1927,1929C,E.
KENYA (As R. er cher and R. raetextatus; Gerstlacker
UGANDA (A. Theiler 1910A. Bruce et al 1911. Neave 1912. Neumann 1922. Richardson 1930. Metta5'I932. Carmichael 1934. Wilson l948B,C,l95OC. Lucas 1954).
TANGANYIKA (Neumann 1901,190vc,1910B,1911. Morstatt 1913. Loveridge 1923A. Bequaert 1930A. Allen and Loveridge 1933. Moreau 1933. Evans 1935. Cornell 1936. Zumpt 1943A. J. B. Walker, unpublished, see various parts of HOSTS section below).
SOUTHERN AFRICA: ANGOLA (Manetti 1920. Sousa Dias 1950.
Santos fiias 195$). MOZAMBIQUE (Howard 1908,1911, larval iden. tification in 1908 paper open to question. As H. ecinctus:
Howard 1909B. Sant'Anna 1911. Theiler 1943B. 'znn5I‘I9Z3A.
NQRTHERN RHODESIA (Neave 1912. Le ROUM l934,l937,l947. Matthysse 1954- Theiler and Robinson l95L)- SOUTHERN RHODESIA (Robertson 1904B. Edmonds and Bevan 1914. Bevan 1920. Jack 192l,1928,l937,l942. Lawrence 1942). NYASALAND (Old 1909.
Neave 1912. De Meza 1918A. Davey and Newstead 1921. Zumpt 1943A. Wilson 1943,1945,194o,1950B).
BECHUANALAND (Theiler, unpublished). SOUTHWEST AFRICA (Trommsdorff 1913,1914. See immature HOSTS below). UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (noon 1844. Neumann 1901,1911. Lounsbury 19031, 1904.A,B,1905B,1906C. Robertson 1904. A. Theiler and Stockman 1904. A. Theiler 1905B,l909B,l9llB,l9l2A,l921. Howard 1908. Ga1li..Valerio 1909B. Speiser 1909. A. Theiler and Christy 1910. Dgnitz 1910B. Moore 1912. Van Saceghem 1914. Breijer 1915. Bedford 1920,1926,1929,1932,1934,1936. Cowdry 1925B,C, 1926A,l927. R. du Toit, Graf, and Bekker 1941. Curson 1928. Cooley 1934. Bedford and Graf 1935,1939. R. du Toit l942B,C, 1947. Zumpt 1943A. Zumpt and Glajchen 1950. Meeser 1952).
OUTLYING ISLANDS: ZANZIBAR (Neave 1912. Aders 1917). SEYCHELLES (Desa1 1952) .
IADAGASCAR: "Neumann (1901,1911). Poisson (1927). Tone1li_ Ronde 11 (1938). Buck (l948A) indicated that this species
("Haema h salis simus") is not established on Madagascar.
NOTE: The known distribution of this species in Arabia on the map of the American Geographical Society (1954) should be limited to the mountains of the Yemen.
MISCELLANEOUS: Tonelli_Rondelli (1938) noted that Stella (l938D) had reported R. simus from ITALY and indicated that this report is certainly 55 error in identification; also that this species is absent from LIBYA /_reported as present by Stella (19380) 7, ALGERIA, TUNISIA, and Moaocco. Records for Mytilene, GREEDE'(Senevet 1920), repeated without further substantiation by Pandazis (1947), and records for TURKEY (Stefko 1917) are probably also erroneous or refer to introduced, non.established specimens.
Neumann (1911) listed R. simus from EGYPT and Brumpt (1920) stated that East Coast fever exists in Egypt and might be carried by this tick. Mason (l922B) quoted this as an erroneous statement that R. simus occured in Egypt, to which Brumpt (1923, p. 43, footn3te) replied that he had merely hypothesized this possibility on the basis of Neumann's record. Carpano (1936) reported microorganisms in specimens of this tick (?imported or misidentified HR) collected from carnivores in the Cairo zoological gardens. Actually, the glossy tick is not established in Egypt, as con. firmed earlier by Mason (l922B).
Records from TURKESTAN (Yakimov and Kbhl_Yakimov 1911, Yakimov l9l7,l922,l923) are based on material now considered as subspecies of R. sanguineus (cf. page 717). The "R. simus or R. sanguineus" from tortoises in IRAN Cfiichael 1899) probably refers to §.
Data from BORNEO (Neumann 1901) probably refers to R. sanguineus subsp. or to R. haemaphysaloides subsp.
Christophers (l907C) reported R. simus from southern INDIA but, as Sharif (1928) says, this to3 is probably a misidentifica. tion. Patton's (1910) remarks concerning the transmission of Piro lasma _ibsoni of India by a new species of tick related to fii'§§5fi§‘Ea§E'BEEfi elaborated in subsequent reviews to indicate
that E. simus transmits this organism.
Adult hosts of predilection are carnivores, pigs, buffalo, and crther large or medium size game animals. Antelopes are usually second.choice hosts. Among domestic animals, dogs and pigs fre_ cpmently are preferred. The incidence on cattle varies locally and uwy be either very high or very low even where the glossy tick is common. People are frequently attacked, especiall in the vicinity of their dwellings. Although Matthysse (1954 con. siders adults to be parasites of medium size mammals, overall data indicate that host size is only one factor, the type of host being an equally important consideration. Larvae and nymphs feed chiefly on burrowing rodents, less commonly on other small animals.
Cattle: Factors influencing parasitism of domestic cattle by R. s. simus are still unknown. Although this tick is common
thraughout Eauatoria Province, its incidence on cattle is nil or low everywhere except in Juba District where the rate may run
fairly high. In Central Sudan, the numbers on cattle are variable but never high.
R. s. simus is one of the five species of this genus that
occurs with any degree of frequency on Uganda cattle but in most districts the rate of infestation is low (Wilson 19500).
In South Africa, the glossy tick “does not appear to thrive
well on cattle" (Lounsbury 1904B). Theiler (correspondence), however, reports that in cattle raising areas of South Africa these animals are the favorite host of the glossy tick.
Wilson (l950B) considered this to be an uncommon Nyasaland tick because he took it on only 24 occasions during an extensive three year tick surv . Ten of these collections were from cattle. Ehrlier, Wilson (1942) doubted that females ever become fully engorged on cattle. Theiler (correspondence) has found that the glossy tick is more common in Nyasaland than Wilson believed. Rarity of cattle infestation here probably accounts for this discrepancy inasmuch as relatively few wild animals were examined. Matthysse (1954) considers this to be a rather important Northern
Rhodesian cattle parasite, but does not provide a clear cut anal. ysis of the situation there.
Low incidence of E. E. simus on cattle is not universal. It is not only common but numerous on cattle on the coastal plains of Kenya (Dick and Lewis 1947).
Dogs: Throughout the range of E. 3. simus, domestic dogs are frequently among its most common hosts and are mentioned by many authors. In Equatoria Province, dogs are infested by this parasite as frequently as they are by R. s. san~ 'neus, but the numbers of simus are considerably lower ii all collections except those from Kajo Kaji. The yellow dog_tick, H. l. leachii, is much less common on dogs in the Sudan but in certain other areas of Africa this is one of their most in rtant arthropod parasites. Kauntze (1934) and Roberts (1935 did not consider R. s. simus to be an important pest of dogs when studying bouton_ '3eu3e'TE¥§¥ in Kenya, but Dick and Lewis (1947) found this common tick to be only slightly less numerous on dogs than R. s. san~ 'neus in the coastal area of Kenya. At Nelspruit, South-Afr ca, Lounsbury (l904A) collected more glossy ticks than kennel ticks on canines in the same place. According to Theiler (correspondence), R. s. simus and H. 1. leachii generally are more common on South Ifrlcan dogs than 15 R. s. san'uineus, and H. l. leachii is usually the most common of-the three. Matthyssé-(I954) listed.§. E. simus only once from Northern Rhodesian dogs, and noted R. a en. diculatus, §. §. sanguineus, and E. tricuspis more frequent y.
Pi s: Wherever I have encountered domestic pigs in the range of the g ossy tick, a close association between the two and a high rate of infestation has been noted. No mention of similar situations is found in the literature. Wild warthogs and bushpigs (see below) are commonly infested. In South Africa, on the other hand, domestic pigs are amazingly free of ticks and more are recorded from bushpigs than from warthogs (Theiler, correspondence).
Tendeiro's reports from Portugese Guinea (listed above) contain numerous references to E. E. simus and E. E. sene alensis on domes. tic pigs. The identity of West Ifrican specimens should be checked.
Other domestic animals are more or less frequently reported as
hosts, but the incidence is seldom if ever mentioned. In addition to the Sudan records given above, some of these are:
Eat (Jack 1921,1942).